Perform rigorous, risk-first review after design and implementation.
Scanned 9/2/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add Eliyce/paqad-ai --skill adversarial-review --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Adversarial Review?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/eliyce-adversarial-review)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: adversarial-review
description: Perform rigorous, risk-first review after design and implementation.
model_tier: reasoning
triggers:
- risk:
- medium
- high
cacheable: false
cache_key_inputs: []
output_format: markdown
input_schema:
request_text:
type: string
required: true
description: Accepted request or change summary.
diff_paths:
type: path[]
required: true
description: Changed artifacts to review.
verification_summary:
type: string
required: false
description: Claimed verification evidence.
---
## What It Does
Runs a risk-first review that looks for correctness defects, rollback hazards, missing coverage, and weak assumptions before work is treated as complete.
## Use This When
Use this after design or implementation when the change is medium or high risk, customer-facing, security-sensitive, or hard to roll back safely.
## Inputs
- Read the request, accepted plan, code or doc diffs, and any claimed verification results.
- Read the most relevant canonical docs for the changed behavior.
- Read `references/review-dimensions.md` before structuring findings.
## Procedure
1. Run `scripts/digest-evidence.sh` to flatten `.paqad/session/verification-evidence.json` into a `gate | category | file:line | ac_id | message` table; cite this table directly when anchoring findings.
2. Review the diff and digest against the dimensions in `references/review-dimensions.md` — correctness, safety, performance, docs drift, verification sufficiency.
3. Prioritize user-visible failure, data corruption, migration risk, and contract breakage above style.
4. Draft the output following `assets/output.template.md`. Severity tags must come from `assets/severity-ranks.txt`. Order findings non-increasing by severity.
5. Validate with `scripts/lint-findings.sh` before returning — exit 0 means the structural contract is met.
## Output Contract
- Match `assets/output.template.md`: `## Findings` heading, one bullet per finding tagged `**Critical|High|Medium|Low**`, each citing concrete `file:line` (or gate name) and ending in a `Required action:` segment. Optional `## Open Questions` section.
- Output must pass `scripts/lint-findings.sh` (exit 0).
## Escalate / Stop Conditions
- Block completion when a finding implies unsafe rollout, data loss, or broken customer behavior.
- Ask when the review depends on environment details or hidden rollout assumptions that are not present.
- Do not dilute confirmed defects with speculative style commentary.
## Resources
- `references/review-dimensions.md`
- `scripts/digest-evidence.sh`
- `scripts/lint-findings.sh`
- `assets/output.template.md`
- `assets/severity-ranks.txt`
- `runtime/capabilities/coding/checklists/database-review-20pt.md`
- `agents/openai.yaml`
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!